About your Search

20120926
20121004
Search Results 0 to 11 of about 12 (some duplicates have been removed)
the obama administration insisted the assault was a protest that got out of hand. fox news confirmed u.s. intelligence did indeed know it was a terror attack of 24 hours of that evening. bill: yesterday the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff and the defense secretary finally statedding the obvious. >> it was a terrorist attack. as we determined details of what took place there and how that attack took place that it became clear there were terrorists who planned that attack. that's when i came to that conclusion. >> day after or was -- >> took a while to really get some of the feedback from what exactly happened at that location. >> there was a thread of intelligence reporting that groups in the environment in western, correction, eastern libya, were seeking to coalesce but there wasn't anything specific. bill: well, peter doocy is live in washington drilling down on the specifics. peter, if the administration knew it was terrorist attack in 24 hours, why did they not just say that? >> reporter: we heard from administration officials there is ongoing investigation and more details wi
enforcement one of the reasons why the obama administration embraced it, but it's all about how these things are represented and what they're obligated to say when your pants down. do you believe in enforcing these laws been problematic are not? and when you say -- the whole idea of the. >> translator: is that these aren't the good kids. many -- i think they're right. it doesn't mean that they're a bad kid. community college or maybe you have got in trouble when you're a teenager. i think there is something very disingenuous about the debate we have around us, but of course that is because advocates of destruction debate in the certain white. this is rooted in any kind of believes that our prior to the way that we actually structure the conversation. i think that advocates have structured the conversation very advantageous sleep. >> a couple more questions in the month to cut off. i was wondering if you could and testimonials in terms of looking forward toward the democratic party strength. >> and also the gentleman over there. >> thank you. thanks to the forum today. the panelists. i can gi
campaign for comment, but they did not return our calls. the obama administration has proposed revising estate planning rules. and one option would be ending this tax benefit. >> it would affect estate planning as we know it. this is something that is commonly done day in and day out and has been for many years. >> that liberal group americans for tax fairness action fund is now calling on release his gift tax returns. that will show more details on how much the couple gifted to their children and grandchildren over the years and how much they paid in taxes, wolf. >> lisa, thanks very much. >>> and you're in "the situation room." happening now, the israeli prime minister draws a chilling red line for iran at the united nations. does it mean military action is imminent? i'll ask the israeli ambassador to the united states this hour. also, syrian rebels scoring new victories on the battlefield thanks possibly to help from expats living right here in the united states. and a new twist in one of america's greatest unsolved mysteries. will drilling into a driveway finally uncover the remains
for the obama administration in the budget office. >> bill: former presidential candidate and speaker of the house, newt gingrich announc jo. >> greta: the headlines, "obama comes to new york for barbara walters, and sort of u.n." why isn't he meeting with anybody? >> i think it's a comment on the depth of his arrogance. i think this is a person that doesn't care what the world thinks, doesn't care what the american people thinks. if he gets re-elected, he'll be right and the rest of us will be wrong. i mean, his view is all about a cynical, calculated approach. "the view" gets him more votes than meeting with 10 or 15 world leaders. and the fact that he's not doing his job is irrelevant. you have to divide it into two parts. there's winning the office and there is actually being president. he's clearly said if i can win the office, i don't care what the rest of you think. let me say, what should really deeply bother americans is how does all this play out in the rest of the world? imagine you were an ambassador trying to explain to the president of egypt or the president of china or
, then. for 10 days after the banghazi attack, the obama administration denied it was a terrorist attack. >> bill: that's a different issue. >> after carney said that morning, okay, now everybody concedes it's a terrorist attack, the same afternoon obama went back to the, oh, it's really caused by the film. i think it's because he wasn't coordinating. >> bill: he was talking about the film today, which is sort of interesting, talking about the video before the u.n. in his speech, talking about how we don't insult -- we should not tolerate insulting religions, yet there was no mention of the fact that ahmadinejad is going to be speaking tomorrow on the holiest day of the jewish faith, yom kippur. he spoke about the insult to the muslim world with this video, but neglected to talk about the insult to jews, while he's diss the prime minister of israel. >> it's worse than that. obama spent three photographs on a -- three paragraphs on the nut cake film that nobody has seen. why is obama fixated on appeasing muslims while attacking catholics? why is that not a topic that ought to be on every
is that the obama administration has declined to defend the defense of marriage act. and governor romney may well decide that he would defend the constitutionality of that statute could but it does not seem that that kind of social conservative question has a lot of salience in something like a presidential debate. so other than health care, i do not see much happening. >> i think it will not happen. and here's why. no major national political figure has attacked affirmative action publicly since 1996 or before. it isind of remarkable. the republicans who, during the 1990's for a while, we're seeing some sort of political profit attacking affirmative action given the polls don't do it anymore. and the democrats, john kerry coming nearly 1990's, joe lieberman in the early 1990's and others, said maybe this time to stop these racial preferences. the democratic leadership council was inching down that road. but that has all gone. i have spoken with republican politicians. why is that? and the answer was that we get so demonized if we ever raise our voices against affirmative action. it is just not w
, what sort of relationship should the united states have with iraq now. how did the obama administration handle the end of the war and where do we go from here. >> those are all important questions, but the whole war was built on a faulty prim is that saddam had weapons of mass destruction. >> i think it's conceded that they didn't have weapons of mass destruction. >> i remember i was in kuwait on the eve of the war. i had a gas masks, they were really fed basically a lie, if you will. >> no, i don't agree. i think that the intelligence was poor and badly done, but i do think -- >> when i say a lie, i mean the sources who were providing that intelligence, these false iraqi sources who were claiming there was poisonous gas here, chemical weapons there, that was a lie. >> i was imbedded for that period and i remember general conway was ahead of the marine forces and they intercepted the code word blood which they thought was the use of chemical weapons. >> the american forces believed that they would face chemical weapons. i remember skud missiles coming in. they believed it. i'm just sayi
of the obama administration. if i understand it correctly, i was busy dodging other kinds of projectiles in iraq at the time. if i understand this correctly, this is a deeply idealistic effort to try to say, we are not only going to give money, not only have an impact with a fairly large, civilian assistance program to balance our ongoing military commitment to pakistan, but we are also going to set up a structure or relationship to what is generally called the strategic partnership to try to mbreak out of that pattern. after 2008 and 2009, those of you who knew richard knew the hurricane hit pakistan and there was a set of very ambitious goals that were put in to try to build a long-term commitment to pakistan. i use long-term advisedly. america is focused on the counter-terrorism after post- 9/11. by the almost a pistol logical elements -- epistemological element, this was to balance that short-term set of needs. american safety, the safety of the pack as any people. to balance that with a commitment of long-term stability, and a vision with pakistan of a long-term stability in pakista
Search Results 0 to 11 of about 12 (some duplicates have been removed)